Loading...
PC 12-10-79 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 Telephone (408) 252-4505 PC-323 Page 1 MINUTES DECEMBER 10, 1979 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER/SALUTE TO THE FLAG: 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present - Commissioner Claudy Commissioner Adams Commissioner Koenitzer Commissiuner Blaine Commissioner Gatto - late arrival APPROVAL MINUTES NOVEMBER 26, 1979 postponed until the end of agenda. MOTION: Com. Blaine. Second: Com. Adams VOTE: PASSED 4-0 Absent: Com. Gatto POSTPONEMENTS/NEW AGENDA ITEMS WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mrs. Ann Anger, Monta Vista resident, entered two requests for consideration, 1) if Item #6 of the Agenda could not b moved forward and be heard at an earlier hour 2) then she wished to have it postponed and appear first on the agend. for the next regular Planning Commission Meeting. She ex- plained that Monta Vista items always came up last on agendas and added that the urgency of the item for the evening was that she had to leave for Sacramento early the next morning. VICE CHR. KOENITZER explained that "Unfinished Business" always came at the end of an Agenda. COM. CLAUDY reminded that the item was before the Planning Commission on reques of City Council and for a Closed Hearing on the issue. In addition, it was stated that Staff entered items on the agendas in order of receipt. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM #1, Application lS-U-77 of SOBRATO DEVELOPMENT PROP- ERTIES: AMENDMENT OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED USE PERMIT to increase the allowable building size and number of seats in the existing Peppermill Restaurant and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project is categorically exempt, hence no action is required. Said property is located on the north east corner of North De Anza Boulevard and Mariani Avenue in a P (Planned Development with commercial/industrial/ office use intent) zoning district. First Hearing con- tinued. Tentative City Council hearing date - December 17, 1979. PC-323 Page 2 MINUTES DECEMBER 10, 1979 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CHR. GATTO requested a rev~ew of the Staff Report by Assistant Planning Director Cowan. The Commissioners discussed the excess parking already available to the Peppermill Restaurant, the park~ng avail- able by virtue of lack of a bank fac~lity, and the eventual possible congestion in parking once the bank facility was in place. Also discussed was the possible spillover into adjacent res~dential streets (Ski Any Mountain, Ltd. was mentioned as an example), and the congestion caused by the changing of traffic patterns on major street&. Even con- sidering difference in hours of operation between bank hours and coctail lounge-restaurant hours, it was agreed that any congestion would be self-regulating in that customer without pArking would not be entering the restaurant; thus, the un- availability of parking space would indicate the inside area could not. be filled. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Claudy Second: Com. Adams PASSED - UNANIMOUSLY 5-0 MOTION: Com. Claudy, approval Application l5-U-77, to ex- pand the restaurant by 300 sq. ft. and seating capacity by 50 seats, in accordance with the Findings and Subconclusions as set forth in the Staff Report of November 2, 1979. Standard Conditions HI through H14; HIS, H16, & H17 as per Staff Report. Second: Com. Adams VOTE: PASSED - UNANIMOUSLY 5-0 ITEM H2, Applications 23-Z-79 and 25-TM-79 of WTW - WARREN WHALEY (SHUTTS & SCHWIMMER): REZONING approximately .5 of a gross acre from Rl-lO (Residential, single-family, 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zone to RlC (Residential, single-family cluster) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission; TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide approximately .5 of an acre into five townhouse parcels and one parcel to be held in common ownership and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. Said property is located on the east side of Vista Drive approxi- mately 350 ft. southerly of Forest Avenue. First Hearing continued. Tentative City Council hearing date - January 7, 1980. The revised plans were exhibited and explained. Mr. Warren P. Whaley, Jr. Applicant, pointed out the re- visions that had been made in response to suggestions by the Planning Commissioners. He stated a general review had resulted in changing some layouts, setbacks, and open area, trees for maintenance, building coverage were identified. Approximately 100 sq. ft. had been taken away from each unit (with the exception of the rear unit). MINUTES DECEMBER 10, 1979 REGULAR MEETING PLANNING COMMISSIO PC-323 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Com. Blaine. Second: Com. Claudy PASSED - UNANIMOUSLY 5-0 There was general agreement that the revised plans were bett r and fit the site to the advantage of future residents. MOTION: Com. Blaine, to approve Negative Declaration. Second: Com. Adams VOTE: PASSED - UNANIMOUSLY 5-0 MOTION: Com. Blaine, approve 23-Z-79 with Standard Conditio s #1 through 114: #15 & 116 & #17 as per Staff Report Second: Com. Koenitzer VOTE: PASSED - UNANIMOUSLY 5-0 MOTION: Com. Blaine, approval 25-TM-79, Standard Conditions #1 through 114: #15, Il6 & #17 as per Findings and Subconc1usions as outlined in the Staff Report appended to the Minutes of the December 10, 1979 Minutes of the Planning Commission. Second: Com. Koenitzer VOTE: PASSED - UNANIMOUSLY 5-0 ,- ITEM #3, Applications 28-U-79 and 26-TM-79 of REGNART CREEK ESTATES (WARREN WHALEY): USE PERMIT to construct five single family detached homes in a P (Planned Development with single-family residential intent) zone; TENTATIVE MAP to divide approximately one acre into five single-family de- tached lots with one lot consisting of private roadways to be held in common and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project was previously assessed, hence no action is required. Said property is located on the nortp side of Orogrande Place approximately 230 ft. westerly of Stelling Road. First Hearing. Tentative City Council hearing date - December V, 1979. Assistant Planning Director Cowan reminded the Commissioners and the public that the issue of Item 13 was the dedication of a section of roadway,' and he advised that the matter was returned from City Council in accordance with the Staff Report of December 6, 1979. A 20 ft. wide access to Oro- grande would be required from property owners through dedi- cation, eminent domain, or condemnation. Provision for firefighting equipment negotiation would be required. Members of the Planning Commission discussed Festival Drive as a private road, maintenance between the drive and the Santa Clara Water District roadway (which was maintained in a natural state), access to Stelling through the 19 acre site across the creek came up, and rights of the state on their right-of-way and objection to public roads being on the property. A Condition permitting petition of the State for installation of the roadway was recommended. The new road- way shall not be named Festival since it will not connect with existing -Fè-St'lväT IYtive;-- PUBLIC HEARING PC-323 Page 4 MINUTES DECEMBER 10, 1979 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Parking spaces at the houses were discussed and it was under- stood that the parking had been relocated to permit better use of additional footage around the houses. Reducing street width from 24 ft. to 20 ft. had helped the relocation of spaces. City Attorney Kilian advised that a Condition (#18) on a new application, could indicate that upon passage by the Commission and the City Council, any other plans would be made invalid. A Condition to permit the City to return to the 1st plan, after a review, prior to filing of the final map, was also proposed. A Minute Order to Staff would suffice. A short letter to City Council, Planning Commission and other interested parties', and stating the wish to abandon the old map would be in order. Condition #21 for the con- struction of Festival Drive was discussed. MOTION: Com. Koenitzer, approval 26-TM-79, Standard Conditions #1 through #14; #15 through #20 as discussed and presented in the December 10, 1979 Planning Com- mission discussions. Findings and Subconclusions of November 6, 1979 Staff Memo (December 10, * 1979 Planning Commission Meeting.) * Second: Com. Blaine VOTE: PASSED - UNANIMOUSLY 5-0 MOTION: Com. Koenitzer, approval 28-U-79, with Standard Conditions #1 through #14; #15 through #18 as per Staff Memo of November 26, 1979; #19 pertaining to the right-of-way as similar to #21 of Tentative Map. * Second: Com. Blaine VOTE: PASSED - UNANIMOUSLY 5-0 ITEM #4, CITY OF CUPERTINO: AMENDMENT TO VARIOUS ELEMENTS OF Rl (RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY) ZONING ORDINANCE including but not limited to setbacks, building height, lot width and architectural projections and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. First Hearing continued. Ten- tative City Council hearing date - January 7, 1980. Associate Planner Piasecki reviewed the Staff Memo and the pasteup version of Ordinance 780. The Commissioners de- cided to go through it page by page. Page 1, Section 4.1: The added "except" seemed to not apply. Recommendation: "no building shaÏl be enlarged except that a. uses buildings and structures lawfully in existence at the time Ordinance 780 is fully amended and......" Approval of the Application is contingent upon the ac- quisition of an unconditional encroachment permit for use * of the State right-of-way for a local street. (1979) MINUTES DECEMBER lO,/REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC-323 Page 5 effect may remain as long as no alterations take place; an b. Those legal non-conforming structures are permitted under the City non-conforming-use Ordinance." Page 2, Section 5.6, one lot depth and the other lot a corner. (Explanation was that everything gets moved in final draft. Page 3, Section 5.24 & 5.23, inquiry as to propriety of in cluding diagrams in Ordinance for simple and effective clarification. Page 5, Section 8.1 on Lot Area was questioned, and it was explained that the rationale built into Section 8.1 allowe some developments the 6.0 or 6,000 sq. ft. minimum lot are on rezoning (consistency in lot sizes to be maintained within the areas). Insertion of such a statement in the General Plan was considered to be more effective. City Attorney Kilian questioned the advisability of in- cluding certain parts of the Ordinance in the General Plan. On the status of "paper lots" Attorney Kilian interpreted Section 8.1 as being available to the citizen under the "prior to adoption provision." He suggested adding "unles otherwise indicated in the General Plan." The possibility of inviting applications for 6,000 sq. ft. minimum lots for rezoning was discussed, and further changes for zoning changes were recommended. It was decided the Ordinance did not permit because permission was the perogative of the Planning Commission and City Council. Page 6, Section 9, noted the difference in setbacks apply- ing to the various types of buildings. Suggestion: relate setback to building area to land area (Section 9.2.b.2, b.3, etc. A percentage of setback and type of building, or a ratio of structure to lot size might be more realisti Page 6, Section 9.3.1: Suggestion of change 8 ft. to 10 ft to satisfy offstreet parking Ordinance -- one side of building providing side yard parking. Two-story buildings should have two 10 ft. spaces. Section 9.3.3, 20 ft. re- quired all around at direction of City Council for two- story elements -- 5-10 ft. applying on one-story building. Section 9.4.2: Two-story rear yard setback be increased to 25 ft, which might create problem in remodeling and cause demand for a variance for two-story addition. Section 9.4.l.b: As to 10 ft. setback, where usable rearyard area equals 20 times lot width -- change to usable rear yard area to include area 10 ft. from rear of building. Page 7, Section 12.1.1 should be clarified as to height limit, based on walls or sloping roof, etc. Section 12.1. was also questioned. Section 10.2: 20 ft. depth should be designated as the length of a vehicle. The Staff was aaked to research the height of accessory buildings and the three feet to the fence (the latter with alternatives), fences being used as baselines to ratio of height of buildings, and minimum distance and angle of roofing. Section 12.2 was referred under this request. PC-323 Page 6 MINUTES DECEMBER 10, 1979 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MOTION: Com. Koenitzer, to continue Item U4, R-l Ordinance to the January 21st, 1980 regular meeting. Second: Com. Claudy VOTE: PASSED - UNANIMOUSLY 5-0 RECESS: 9:30 p.m. UNFINISHED BUSINESS ITEM US. Application l8-TM-79 of MICHAEL G. ~ISANO: TENTATIVE MAP to resubdivide four existing lots of record consisting of approximately one acre into four parcels equaling approxi- mately 10,000+ sq. ft. each and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. Said property is located on the west side of San Felipe Road at the westerly terminus of Alcalde Road in an Rl-10 (Residential, single-family, 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size zoning district. (Referred back to Planning Commission from City Council). Tentative City Council hearing date - December 17, 1979. Assistant Planning Director Cowan reviewed the circumstances of the Item US coming back to the Planning Commission. City Attorney Kilian advised that new evidence was being taken, and as a Condition to the Tentative Map, all the surrounding property owners should sign the dedication for the roadway. PUBLIC HEARING SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY & COMMENTS The Planning Commissioners agreed that the Staff should bring the matter back after settlement of basiC problems. MINUTES DECEMBER 10, 1979 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEET NG PC-323 Page 7 Mr. Michael G. Pisano, Applicant, asked that Condition #18 not be included in his application because of the punitive and open-ended condition that could penalize him. He repeated that reaching an agreement would continue to be a goal for him. City Attorney Kilian advised that the City might be a tar- get of a suit (assuming imposition of Condition #18 did penalize Mr. Pisano as a result of a road he didn't own). The best protection for the City would be to have the __surroundin~ owners ancLint=est:e.d rart:l.e.sQui.LC1 aim prQP_erties . within the PE.opo.se~ ~J.ght of. way_. . .~-~_._----- MOTION: Com. Blaine, RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL, Resolution as per Staff Report. Second: Com. Claudy VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Claudy, Adams, Blaine, Gatto NO: Commissioner Koenitzer Absent: Abstained PASSED 4-1 ITEM 86, Applications 20-Z-79 and 24-U-79 of ALLEN DEGRANG REZONING approximately .3 of a gross acre from ML (Light Industrial) to P (Planned Development with commercial and industrial intent) zone or whatever zone may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission; USE PERMIT to con struct a 6,600 sq. ft. commercial and industrial building and ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Review Com- mittee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration. Said. property. is located. on the. east. side of Imperial Avenue approximately 120 ft. southerly of Stevens Creek Boulevard. (Referred back to Planning Commission from City Council). Tentative City Council hearing date - December 17, 1979. The Commissioners discussed the City Council's concern for resale use of the property, and the concern for ad- hering to the General Plan direction for retailing in the property. Also, it was noted that the Council had agreed with the parking spaces allocations, but had changed the angle of parking from 60 degrees to 75 degrees. Mrs. Ann An~er expressed concern that Monta Vista was being used as a last resort area for businesses not welcom in other areas of Cupertino. Mr. Lynch, Applicant and owner-operator, said he expected to have a retail business in the front of the place and a wholesale business in the back. He noted that a smaller building was fine with him and pointed out that a large' portion of the building would have displays inviting the public to enter. PC-323 Page 8 MINUTES DECEMBER 10, 1979 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SectioĊ“ from the Commercial Ordinance were read, and a list of excluded uses was reviewed. After much discussion, it was agreed to report back to City Counc 1^1. MOTION: REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL, Com. Blaine, requested that Assistant Planning Director Cowan report to City Council on Resolution '2010. Condition #16 to be amended to read "retail/wholesale business." Resolution 2011, Condition '19, modify to "retail/ wholesale business." 24-U-79, be a~ended to read, "parking of 75 degrees, angled (instead of 60 degrees, angled). EXPLANATION TO CITY COUNCIL: It was felt that a retail/wholesale business was within the definition of the General Plan for Monta Vista for zoning and use permit with the Standard Conditions as mod if ied. Second: Com. Claudy VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Claudy, Adams, Gatto, Blaine NO: Commissioner Koenitzer Absent: Abstained PASSED 4-1 OLD BUSINESS TOWN CENTER, NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Assistant Planning Director Cowan asked that the Planning Commission formally pass a Negative Declaration to supercede any previous votes on Environmental Impact. MOTION: . Com. Adams, approval 24-Z-77, granting of Negative Declaration. Second: Com. Blaine VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Claudy, Adams, Koenitzer & Blaine NO: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: Commissioner Gatto (absent from June Meeting.). NEW BUSINESS APPROVAL OF MINUTES, NOVEMBER 26, 1979. Page 3, locate & delete "other than Dr. Brown and the new street. ,I Page 4, par. 1, 5th line. delete, "which may be finished or not." and substitute. "could"-- after comma; êielete would and insert "determine. then, whether Any Mountain would have to prcivide for carpooling." 3rd line from bottom. delete "but." and add "future after available. Delete "do" in the last line. MINUTES DECEMBER 10, 1979 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETI G PC-323 Page 9 Page 4, middle of page, change to read, "Com. Koenitzer felt that any special Use Permit request by anybody should address the problem of the expected parking load, parking andhow they were to be handled." Page 5, in MINUTE ORDER TO COUNCIL. Change text to read that "all" special events should be covered by permit. Page II, Mr. Knowlin, should read, "his other concern was to have some guarantee as to what happens to his access. H required continuous access while the construction is going on." MOTION: Approve November 26, 1979 Planning Commission Minu es Commissioner Adams Second: Commissioner Koenitzer PASSED - UNANIMOUSLY 5-0 VOTE: REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Com. Koenitzer shared information from the League Meeting as t~ 4e~inition~_f_Q~~~f~~ilyrest~iction violations, more and more families would be doubling up_in single family residential_in violation of Cupertino definition of single fal1lily_Je'Lidences.__ Note: The other c~nc~~~ w~s possible regarding ~q_QP~~a~ive apartments and condominiums in the City. Staff informed the Commissioners, in response to an inquiry that stances were being taken as to annexing islands --- starting with Inspiration Heights. City Attorney Kilian stated that the City was consistent with the Supreme Court Ruling on the matter. Com. Gatto, having attended the Mayor's Luncheon Meeting, reported that the Sheriff's Substation response time had been discussed. REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR Assistant Planning Director Cowan ran down the lengthy Agenda for the January 14, 1980 Regular Meeting and asked for a Special (or extention of the regular meeting) to January 16, 1980. It was agreed the one agenda would be used and continued for both meetings. In addition, Mr. Cowan highlighted a few of the Council actions over a two- month period and advised that he would submit a report in writing for the convenience of the Commissioners. ADJOURNEMENT: 11:47 p.m. APPROVED: /1- ATTEST: